“Vacate the Purported Writ and Avoid Embarrassment”

Chambers (left) to Korkpor: “The House thinks that the writ violates Article 3, separation of power clause, Article 42, immunity clause, Article 43, impeachment power, and a long-term of cases and precedence in this jurisdiction and its progeny.”

What was expected to be a reconciliation hearing between the Supreme Court and lawmakers from the Lower House about a decision to impeach Associate Justice Kabineh Ja’neh on yesterday, August 22, turned confrontational when the lawmakers wrote the High Court to “vacate the purported stay order and avoid embarrassment.”

The August 18 stay ordered was imposed by Associate Justice Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh, current Chamber Justice against some members of the House of Representative that include Speaker Bhofal Chambers, to desist from any proceedings about Ja’neh’s impeachment pending the outcome of the justice’s complaint of constitutional violation by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court.

To make their invitation more formal, the Court, on August 20, again wrote Speaker Chambers and the leadership of the House of Representatives to respond and subsequently mandated the lawmakers to appear before them on Wednesday, August 22, for an argument on the merit of the stay order.

At yesterday’s hearing, the House of Representatives did not show up as anticipated; they simply replied, speaking against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s mandate and informing the justices, including Chief Justice Francis Saye Korkpor, that Yuoh’s stay order violates Articles, 3, 42 and 43 of the Constitution.

A copy of the lawmakers’ letter, which has been obtained by the Daily Observer, references the “Purported Writ,” dated on August 18 and under the signature of Mildred N. Sayon, chief clerk of the House of Representatives, and subsequently addressed to Chamber Justice Yuoh, reads: “I present compliments and by directive of the Plenary of the House of Representatives of the 54th Legislature (in Session), have the honor to inform you that it is in possession of a paper served on it entitled, Writ of Prohibition by Justice-in-Chambers Sie-A-Nyene G. Yuoh.”

The communication further says, “The Plenary of the House of Representatives has instructed me to inform you for reasons set out below, that the House of Representatives does not intend to honor the terms or conditions of the writ.”

It continues, “The House thinks that the writ violates Article 3, separation of power clause, Article 42, immunity clause, Article 43, impeachment power, and a long-term of cases and precedence in this jurisdiction and its progeny.”

In conclusion, the communication warned that, “You are therefore advised in the interest of our constitutional democracy and consistent with the separation of powers and checks and balances to vacate this writ and avoid embarrassment to the sacred institution of the Supreme Court.”

Justice Yuoh’s stay order, which is at the center of the lawmakers’ letter, directed that, “And all parties are ordered returned to status quo ante, pending the disposition of the Writ of Prohibition.”

Her action was prompted by a request from one of Ja’neh’s lawyers, Arthur Johnson, who prayed for her to issue an “Alternative Writ of Prohibition,” preventing the lawmakers from proceeding further with Ja’neh’s impeachment, which she did.

Article 3, separation of power clause, states that, “Liberia is a unitary sovereign state divided into counties for administrative purposes. The form of government is Republican with three separate but coordinating branches: the Legislature, the Executive and Judiciary. Consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, no person holding office in one of these branches shall hold office in or exercise any of the powers assigned to either of the other two branches except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; and no person holding office in one of the said branches shall serve on any autonomous public agency.

Article 42 also provides that, “No member of the Senate or House of Representatives shall be arrested, detained, prosecuted or tried as a result of opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of the functions of his office. Members shall be privileged from arrest while attending, going to or returning from sessions of the Legislature, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace. All official acts done or performed and all statement made in the Chambers of the Legislature shall be privileged, and no Legislator shall be held accountable or punished thereof.”

While Article 43 went on, “The power to prepare a bill of impeachment is vested solely in the House of Representatives, and the power to try all impeachments is vested solely in the Senate. When the President, Vice President or an Associate Justice is to be tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; when the Chief Justice or a judge of a subordinate court of record is to be tried, the President of the Senate shall preside. No person shall be impeached but by the concurrence of two-thirds of the total membership of the Senate. Judgements in such cases shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold public office in the Republic; but the party may be tried at law for the same offense. The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.”

Despite the lawmakers’ refusal to attend yesterday’s hearing, Chief Justice Francis Korkpor and his colleagues, excluding the embattled Justice Ja’neh, who had openly announced his recusal from the bench for that case, proceeded with the matter, with him being represented by a team of lawyers.

In response to the lawmakers’ communication, Chief Justice Korkpor was heard carefully telling colleagues at the Bench that, “We are taking keen note of the letter.”

Besides, the chief justice informed the jam-packed court that because of the sensitive nature of the issue raised by the lawmakers over the impeachment of one of them, they resolved to invite the Ministry of Justice, that is the legal arm of the Executive, to provide the defense of the law.

“The ministry is not a party to the case, but we have included them in defense of the law,” Korkpor clarified, citing the involvement of the ministry. He later postponed his brief hearing shortly after Cllr. James E. Pierre, the lead lawyer for Justice Ja’neh, informed the court that they could not file all of their legal documents to set the stage for hearing into their request for a Writ of Prohibition, because they could not cope with the time the court requested them to submit those instruments.

Cllr. Pierre meanwhile asked for additional week to prepare for the hearing into the writ because, according to him, the issue raised by the lawmakers contained serious study, and they need enough time to file a well-researched defense for Justice Ja’neh.

Likewise, Solicitor General Daku Mulbah, who represented the ministry, also expressed similar request for the postponement of the matter for additional week to enable them file their legal document that would be in defense of the law in the way of the impeachment proceedings by lawyers representing Justice Ja’neh.

It can be recalled that on Tuesday, July 17, 2018, the Bill of Impeachment Petition, together with a motion proffered by Grand Kru County District #1 Representative Nathaniel Barway, received a favorable vote in the House of Representatives. Shortly afterward, Speaker Chambers set up an 8-man Ad-Hoc Committee to review and investigate the Impeachment Bill as well as the write-up of the proceedings.

That committee was given three weeks as of July 17, 2018, to begin work and report to Plenary.

The committee is chaired by Gbarpolu County District#2 Representative Karnie Wesso, and co-chaired by Bong County District #5 Representative Edward Karfiah.

Others were Representatives Dickson Seboe of District 16, Montserrado County; Jeremiah Koung of District #1, Nimba County; Dr. Isaac Roland of District 3, Maryland County; Clarence Gahr of District #5, Margibi County, and Rustonlyn S. Dennis of District#4, Montserrado County.

While awaiting the expiration of the three-week ultimatum for Speaker Chambers to start Justice Ja’neh’s impeachment debate, Justice Yuoh mandated them to stay all further proceedings in the matter.

69 COMMENTS

The Supreme Court (SC) fired “warning shots” at the “House” , the “House” defiantly responded with suppressive “flame and fire” from it’s arsenal sending the SC to dash for cover. The SC, now under siege and is sending an SOS radio call inviting MoJ , a possible ally (not really).

Seriously, the SC should never put itself in an embarrassing position as is the current case. I am not taking any position here (I assume there is an ulterior political motive here for Janeh’s impeachment , but you know what? Karma has caught up with Janeh). I can’t wait to see how the SC is going to circumnavigate the “counter arguments” presented by the “House”.

This Supreme Court got itself in a pickle and I’m not sure how it will end. Speaker Chambers on the other hand is no idiot and he will not cave-in to the court because he is on solid legal grounds. Mr. Chambers must make sure he got his colleagues on his side to be successful in this stand-off. The court can’t interfere to protect Justice ja’neh…that’s corrupt. Let the House of Representatives do its work and when the matter gets to the senate where the trial takes place, then Ja’neh’s lawyers can argue his defense. That’s how the system is designed to work. Obviously, the court is trying to scuttle the process to protect one of their own and that’s totally unacceptable. The court is undermining its integrity with the pubic and it’s very bad for our democracy.

Mr. Call Me John Doe, what we have been hearing from the Supreme Court were simply the barks of a toothless and pawless bulldog. Bunch of corrupt, wicked, and reckless, half-baked charge and bill lawyers, who being mere butterflies, thought themselves to be birds, until THE HOUSE decided to discipline them.

Before trying to save the neck of one of their partners in wickedness and infidelity to the Liberian Constitution in such matters ad this, they should initially ask themselves:

(1) Does the Liberian Constitution exhibit a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to one of the political branches, that is, to the Legislature or the ptesidency?

(2) Is there a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving the issue?

(3) Is there a need for finality in the action of the political branch?

(4) Is it difficult or impossible to devise effective judicial remedies?

But instead of engaging these enumerations supra, they came making fool of themselves, when the constitutional reality is that applying the separation of powers policies embedded in these questions we have cited supra, any responsible Supreme Court under a constitition such as Liberia’s, would have refused such tabatalistic complaint from Janeh’s so called lawyers, on grounds that procedures concerning constititional amendments and or impeachments are no go areas for the Liberian Supreme Court.

I really cherish THIS HOUSE!!! “Vacate the purported writ and avoid embarrassment!”

That is how you respond to a group of so called lawyers bent on taking the whole country as gullibles, amid their bastardly conduct such as:

judging in favor of lawbreakers who deluberately violated the Code of Conduct law.

violating the constitution viz their judgement in favor of Edwin Snowe who was constitutionally INELLIGIBLE AND NOT QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR LEGISLATIVE SEAT IN ANOTHER COUNTY OR DOMICILE WHILE STILL DOMICILED IN ANOTHER COUNTY.

Thank you honorable House. You have asserted and demonstrated your role and status as the bulwark of the national purpose!!

When the future books are written, historians will have to pause and write that yours was THE HOUSE which injected the true meaning of the ultimate rule of law in the veins of Liberia’s constitutionalism!!!

Some of you really don’t understand the law and how to interpret the Constitution. The Constitution gives the SC the power to intervene in ANY proceeding requiring due process of law! It further states that the proceedings in the Legislature for impeachment are required to fall in line with due process of law. It doesn’t matter whether its the Legislature or Executive! This was intentionally placed in the Constitution to prevent any branch from becoming authoritarian which is exactly what is happening. Why is this so difficult for some of you to understand? One day the Legislature may try to arrest and detain one of YOU without due process and you will regret your words!

Not a blanket slate, but, the constitutionality of an given issue….It has no right in this matter as it relates to the first branch as they are doing their work as prescribed by the same constitution…The SC must stop it unwarranted interfering habit….

OPI, the ” POLITICAL QUESTION” DOCTRINE holds that the Supreme Court of Liberia is prohibited by the principles of the separation of powers, and the non-encroachment principle from interfering in amendments and impeachments!!

The key is the last section “proceedings which shall be IN CONFORMITY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.” If the proceedings are not in conformity with due process of law the SC can intervene UNTIL the Legislature adjusts the proceedings to allow for due process. I am beginning to believe some of you just don’t want to understand!

Last sentence of Article 43:
The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.

Who CHECKS the the Legislature if they violate this? The Supreme Court!

No one is saying the Legislature can’t impeach! If the Legislature wants to impeach it has to be in line with certain requirements! If their proceedings are not then the SC can intervene (if and when petitioned) UNTIL the proceedings are adjusted or corrected!

” The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority…….The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.”

Article 66
The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors,
ministers or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme
Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law
nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the
powers granted herein.

The key is he last section “proceedings which shall be IN CONFORMITY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.” If the proceedings are not in conformity with due process of law the SC can intervene UNTIL the Legislature adjusts the proceedings to allow for due process. I am beginning to believe some of you just don’t want to understand!

Last sentence of Article 43:
The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.

Who CHECKS the the Legislature if they violate this? The Supreme Court!

” The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority…….The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.”

Article 66
The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors,
ministers or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme
Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law
nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the
powers granted herein.

No one is saying the Legislature can’t impeach! If the Legislature wants to impeach it has to be in line with certain requirements! If their proceedings are not then the SC can intervene (if and when petitioned) UNTIL the proceedings are adjusted or corrected!

The proceedings carried on by the Legislature was being followed my friend. The supreme court just got this one wrong by stepping in the matters of the Legislature. It’s clear as daylight for you to see. There seems a little political undertone about this legislative proceeding; however, there is no legal evident to conclude as the law is the law whether political or not, whether good or bad it is the law it must be followed.

Hey OPI, why do YOU want to ignore the FIRST and SECOND sentences of ARTICLE 43 that states that “The power to prepare a bill of impeachment is vested SOLELY in the House of Representatives and the power to try all impeachments is vested solely in the Senate. When the President, Vice President or an Associate Justice is to be tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; when the Chief Justice or a judge of a subordinate court of record is to be tried, the President of the Senate shall preside”??? Aren’t they “key” parts of Article 43 too?? Also, do you know what they mean??

If not, here’s what they mean in plain English: FIRST, the House prepare a bill of impeachment (crimes alleged to have been committed by the associate Justice Ja’neh. The key word here is “alleged”).

NEXT (second), the proceedings move to the Senate, which holds a trial overseen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

At the SECOND step, not at the FIRST, “due process” for Justice Ja’neh is REQUIRED, because he is being TRIED in the Senate (senators serve as jurors), with the Chief Justice presiding!!

There is NO “due process” required in the FIRST step (impeachment) for Justice Ja’neh, because the bill of impeachment is “mere allegations”! Therefore, at this point, Supreme Court has NO fish to fry in the House impeachment proceeding.

At the time of my writing OPI, there are two comments and I assume you are highly likely referring to our comments ( Phil George and I). I’ll tell you what, you are right , “I don’t really understand the law” (assuming you are referring to my comment), law/jurisprudence can be terribly difficult to comprehend/interpret and in some cases alternative interpretations may apply based on “stare decisis”.

You stated :
…”It further states that the proceedings in the Legislature for impeachment are required to fall in line with due process of law. It doesn’t matter whether its the Legislature or Executive! This was intentionally placed in the Constitution to prevent any branch from becoming authoritarian which is exactly what is happening…”

Are you implying that the Legislature cannot initiate impeachment proceedings without going through the court system? Please clarify for me (a layman). I am not taking sides here (I assume there might be political motive to impeach Janeh as I stated earlier), but it clearly seems to me that the Supreme Court intervened in order to protect one of their own, not taking into account the legality of it’s intervention.

As for your assertion that the Legislature may try to arrest “one of us”, it’s already happening, who makes the laws that arrests “one of us” ? The Legislature ! Do some more research before you come on here to make “one of us” look stupid/lame… Have a nice day!

The key is he last section “proceedings which shall be IN CONFORMITY WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW.” If the proceedings are not in conformity with due process of law the SC can intervene UNTIL the Legislature adjusts the proceedings to allow for due process. I am beginning to believe some of you just don’t want to understand!

The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which

shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.

Article 43

The power to prepare a bill of impeachment is vested solely in the House of

Representatives, and the power to try all impeachments is vested solely in the

Senate. When the President, Vice President or an Associate Justice is to be

tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; when the Chief Justice or a judge of a

subordinate court of record is to be tried, the President of the Senate shall

preside. No person shall be impeached but by the concurrence of two-thirds of

the total membership of the Senate. Judgments in such cases shall not extend

beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold public office in the

Republic; but the party may be tried at law for the same offense. The

Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which

Opi, both impeachment proceedings in the House, and in the Senate, are what is meant by the jurisprudential concept of “due process of law, and or the constitutional stipulation of ” due process of law.”

No one is saying the Legislature can’t impeach! If the Legislature wants to impeach it has to be in line with certain requirements! If their proceedings are not then the SC can intervene (if and when petitioned) UNTIL the proceedings are adjusted or corrected!

” The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority…….The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the powers granted herein.”

Article 66
The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or
any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors,
ministers or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme
Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law
nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme Court of any of the
powers granted herein.

If you sharpened the monkey teeth and it bit you, you shouldn’t complain. They rendered a false judgment on the election and it was only Ja’ Neh that dissented and this should be a learning for the SC. The monkey is going to bit yourself.

False judgments rendered on the election you said? Are you kidding yourself to think that your UP lost an election they won? Its due to your political incompetency and irogance that led to your lost. It pains to see brother who are schooled but refused to use their analytical skills to bring them to political realities. I can give you many reasons why you lost despite I being thousand miles away from liberia. Stop you misleading fiction and live with the truth. CDC beat you fair and squard.

(Liberia, July 23, 2018) Representative Acarous M. Gray of District N0.8 has clarified that the Bill of impeachment against His Honour Kabineh M. Ja’neh of the Honourable Supreme Court of Liberia is not speculative but rather it is predicated upon compelling evidence of proved official misconduct, abused of public office, wanton abuse of judicial discretion for private gains, misuse of power, frauds and corruption.

In providing clarifications on why the bill of indictment had become imperative, Representative noted that Justice Ja’neh had contravened not just the appellate procedures of the Honour Supreme Court of Liberia through which cases are heard by the full bench, but had wilfully and illegally engaged in quasi-law-making for personal gains, by aiding and abetting lawyers representing ECOBANK to ignore and bypass all appellate procedures or a negotiated settlement, in the case, to file a petition for a writ of certiorari where no appeal was perfected, final judgment rendered by the lower court and the matter had been concluded.

He said when the appeal by ECOBANK’s lawyers was dismissed by Judge Boima Kontoe, based on the motion filed by Mr. Austin Clark’s lawyers, there was no longer any trial proceedings pending before the court below, except the enforcement of the final judgment, but because Justice Ja’neh had vested interest in the matter, he illegally and unethically instigated ECOBANK Lawyers to bypass the appeal process and file a petition for a writ of certiorari in his chambers when the ruling in the court below was not an interlocutory ruling but rather a final judgment.

He said certiorari, as a writ of review, can only be entertained by a high court when the trial proceedings from which it is filed is still pending before the lower court but not when a final judgment has been rendered and the matter has been terminated as it was in the Austin Clark’s case.

Representative Gray said judges and justices are required to be neutral and impartial in all matters no matter whose interest is involved and noted that it is unfortunate and absolutely disgraceful that Justice Ja’neh had become both a lawyer and justice for the defendant by illegally developing a “by-pass or a substitute” process to the appellate procedures of the Honourable Supreme Court for his own his own selfish gains in total contravention of Article 65 of the 1986 Constitution which instructs that judges and justices should apply both statutory and customary laws in accordance with the standards enacted by the legislature.

He said the Supreme Court of Liberia has ruled on a number of cases that there is no “bypass or a substitute” procedure to an appeal process and that once a party fails to perfect an appeal, the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction over its matter but because Justice Ja’neh wanted to satisfy his personal interest at the detriment of the law, he deliberately altered this stated principle of law by illegally introducing a foreign practice of “bypass and substitute” to a appeal process by means of a petition for a writ of certiorari simply to undermine the administration of justice and to ensure that justice is given to the highest bidder.

Speaking on the second issue contained in the bill of impeachment, Representative Gray said Justice Ja’neh totally unmindful of his office, status and standing in society, and living under the illusion that he can sport with the property rights of his perceived victims with impunity, had decided to commit frauds and other corrupt activities in board day light, by illegally purchasing a piece of property belonging to Madame Annie Yancy from one J. Nyema Constance Jr., on account that the said J. Nyema Constance Jr., had obtained letters of administration for the subject property in 1960 while he (Constance Jr.) was just four(4) years old.

He said such claim is not only morally and judicially offensive to any reasonable mind but clearly speaks of the bankrupt and condescending nature how Justice Ja’neh regards his office, status and image on the bench and how he has used his influence on the Supreme Court bench to illegally legitimize the purported purchase of the property by means of fraudulent documents.

While on the Honourable Supreme Court bench, Representative Gray added, Justice Ja’neh used the fraudulent letters of administration to institute a lawsuit against Madame Yancy and her children, intimidated her lawyers to stay away from the matter, and through dubious means, won the case not once, but twice, on a fictitious default judgment both at the lower court and the Honourable Supreme Court of Liberia, and ultimately evicted 93 years old Madame Yancy and her children from the property.

Speaking further, he said the bill of impeachment against Justice Ja’neh is purely based on the abuse of power, misuse of public office for private gains, fraud and rampant corruption, and described as a complete “secretarian politics” statements coming from a group calling itself Nimba Bar Association condemning the bill of impeachment against Justice Ja’neh.

Representative Gray further described as shamefully regrettable the closed minded approach adopted by the Nimba Bar on a critical national issue by attempting to breed secretarian politics into the impeachment proceedings without giving the petitioners the benefit of the doubt to prove their allegations of proved misconduct, abuse of power abuse of judicial discretion for private gains, misuse of office, fraud and corruption allegations against Justice Ja’neh.

Meanwhile, Representative Gray said the petitioners have begun identifying and lining up material witnesses that will testify against Justice Ja’neh during the proceedings, and noted that no amount of partisan or secretarian politics will help to trivialize the impeachment proceedings against Justice Ja’neh, and called on the men and women of the Nimba Bar Association to desist from blindly throwing their weight and support around Justice Ja’neh who debased the integrity of our judicial system for private gains at the detriment of innocent Liberians.

Finally, those few oppositions who described our action as chaotic must respect the constitutional authority given to us to impeach. We will remain in the path of the law and never kowtow to jungle justice.

Solomon. Thanks for the posting from the press release on the alledged accusations. If what I’ve read in your comments represents at Par the evidence submitted in the filing with the House, this is even more serious than I thought. On the EcoBank case, the appearance of misconduct would be, if proven, that the Judge provided legal advice to a party in bringing a case before the Court where the Judge is one of the justices to hear the case for the sole reason of allowing him to make a decision in a case he has pecuniary interest. I don’t see any issue with the Supreme Court acceptance of the writ of certiorari. The Court can choose to accept or deny a petition for a writ of certiorari with no need to explain the reasons. There are cases where intermediary Courts are appealed to first and then their decisions are appealed to the Supreme Court. There are also the nature of cases that are of such national impact and no intermediary Courts to hear appeals of lower courts. In such cases, the Supreme Court can choose to hear such cases. I don’t know the nature of the EcoBank case or the holding from the lower court. From your posting, it appears that there was already a decision made by the lower court. As such, a writ of certiorari is appropriate. In the U S. if the Supreme Court accepts a petition for a Writ of certiorari, it simply means most of the judges agree to hear the case.

The second issue raised in the posting in your comment relates to the land deal. If the judge arranged to have a fraudulent document presented before the full bench that gives legality to the transaction, that’s troubling. If the full bench did not ascertain the facts and simply relied on a document, that a careful review should have raised red flag, in the U S., that would be a breach in a requirement under the Judicial Codes of Conduct. I’m relying on the information that the seller’s letter of administration was obtained when he was 4 years old. If none of the judges questioned this, they all should answer why. The other issue in this land deal is that the widower’s lawyers were intimidated to stay away. As Lawyers, if they did such, their actions should be reviewed for possible disbarment and punitive fines.

The Nimba Bar Association’s statement is void of any legal argument to curtail the House proceedings and it lacks merit. It is based on a a divisive argument that all Liberians should discourage, regardless of political, geographic or tribal affiliations.

It appears the court is prime for committing one faux par after another. The Chief Justice invited the Justice Ministry to appear before them to defend the Constitution. In other words, the Judiciary wants the Executive Branch to interpret for them the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for that. The Solicitor General does not interpret the law. He goes to court to either persecute a party who is in violation of law or defend a party in court in an issue that raises constitutional questions and the court decides. In this request, is the Ministry being invited to persecute the House before the Court or defend the accused Justice before the court?! Why would the Ministry of Justice even agree to the request, rather than reply the court and explain that there are no constitutional provisions that granted the court to issue such a request and none soever to the Executive Branch in clarifying the law. The only Branch with law making authority as a primary function is the Legislature. And where laws are ambiguous the Court through Judicial Review could decide based on what they believe was the intent of the lawmakers, or rule that a law as written is unconstitutional requiring the Legislature to draft new laws that clarifies their intent. But the Ministry of Justice? And the court is making the request? The Chief Justice has already compromised his impartiality and would need to recuse himself should there be a Senate trial.

Look at STUPIDITY, does Speaker UNDERSTAND Article 3? A citizen filed a complaint on an action been carried out the The House and the Justice in Chamber put a halt on the process until the Full Bench can hear the complaint and to Speaker Chambers is wrong? Can a Justice alone hear a Constitutional that no precedent Mr. Speaker? Maybe he read these cases… Broh v Hon House of Rep. et al. [2014] LRSC 20 (24 January 2014), JUPICA et al. v NEC et al. [2014] LRSC 60 (13 December 2014), In re Cllr. Abayomi Cassell [1979] LRSC 9; 28 LLR 107 (1979) (15 June 1979), Ware v RL [2012] LRSC 10 (6 July 2012).

Korkpor, and the rest on the Supreme Court’s bench displayed stupidity, sillyness, and foolishness, by foolishly believing they had powers to halt impeachment proceedings. In their stupidity, they foolishly deluded themselves into the fantasy that they would have an opportunity to define the issues around the impeachment proceedings in the House through their rubbish they call writ of prohibition.

Now with THE HOUSE having sent them packing, they in reality appear as strayed chickens.

As for Korkpor he wants to ensure that when ( NOT IF) the impeachment hits the Senate’s floor, he should be the judge. But we hope by now voices to have him (Korkpor) recuse himself, are just a matter of time, since the need for his recusal has been made manifestly evident via his writ which THE HOUSE has trashed.

Christian Nelson, the speaker is reminding the ChiefJustice that the omnipresent and potentially omnipotent check on the legislative and executive branches a Supreme Court in A FEDERAL COUNTRY(eg. USA. Nigeria, India) may enjoy, a Supreme Court in A UNITARY STATE/COUNTRY/NATION (Liberia, Ghana etc) does not have such supreme latitude; most especially so in such matters as impeachment, amendments, and other fundamental workings of the legislature.

This is what inter alia those bunch of half-baked lawyers calling themselves justices foolishly believed THE HOUSE did not know. And it beats the imagination that in as much as this unitary state structure is made clear in Article 3 of the Liberian Constitution, Korkpor and his cohorts still opted to try their luck.

To play the devil’s advocate, Article 43 states, “The power to prepare a bill of impeachment is vested solely in the House of Representatives, and the power to try all impeachments is vested solely in the Senate.”

However, Article 71 also states, “The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of subordinate courts of record shall hold office during good behavior. They may be removed upon impeachment and conviction by the Legislature based on proven misconduct, gross breach of duty, inability to perform the functions of their office, or conviction in court of law for treason, bribery or other infamous crimes.”

May I ask these Honorable Legislators; on what legal grounds (charges) did the House of Representative initiate or present a motion to prepare a bill of impeachment of Associate Justice Ja’neh? Was this bill of impeachment based on “proven misconduct, gross breach of duty, or his (Associate Justice Ja’neh’s) inability to perform the functions of his office, or his conviction in court of law for treason, bribery, or other infamous crimes?”

If any of these charges listed under Article 71 were brought fort for political reasons or political retaliation, then this tactical move by the House sets a bad precedence that will inhibit Judges or Supreme Justices from rendering difficult opinions/decisions free from external political pressure. This strong-arm-tactics by the legislative branch of government with its majority political party members or any future political members in the majority will not protect the constitutional rights of the judiciary to decide a case with full freedom of expression. It also has the propensity to stifle Judges’ ability to use their discretion in their interpretation of the law.

We are entering another constitutional crisis whenever a party in majority flexes its muscle to impeach a Supreme Court Justice because the Constitution gives the Legislative Branch the power to prepare a bill to impeach a sitting Supreme Court Justice on charges of “proven misconduct” . What statue in Article 71 constitutes “proven misconduct” on the part of Associate Justice Ja’neh that warrants his impeachment?

This sitting legislative body has to be careful because in the future, it could be another party in the majority in both Houses. By haphazardly drumming up charges for a Supreme Court Justice’s impeachment, such bad decision has the propensity of harming Liberia’s present and future judicial independence from the Executive and Legislative Branch of government. It likewise creates the danger of pressuring judges to cater to the ideology/loyalty of a governing party in majority or they will face the consequences in an impending Bill for impeachment. Such political pressure is dangerous for the stability of Liberia’s fragile democracy.

My devil’s advocacy does in no way diminish the importance in the separation of power, nor do I agree with Justice Youh for her manipulative interference in what is solely a legislative constitutional mandate given to the Legislative Branch under Article 43 & 71.

I am looking at these fabricated impeachment charges from a political point-of-view and the future consequences a party in majority could have in impeaching Supreme Court Judges whenever they want thus giving the Legislative Branch as well as the Executive greater influence over the judicial independence of the Supreme Court of Liberia now and in the future.

The Legislative Branch of Government which is responsible for enacting laws could come up with better laws in raising the character threshold for accountability of Judges and also for themselves (lawmakers) to ensure that Judges judicial independence are not easily infringed upon by political biases.

Remember, Judges decisions are sometimes hard to swallow even that of Justice Ja’neh.

The Supreme Court cannot intervene if and when a member is taken to task. The House could vote to impeach the entire court as done in W. Virginia in the U.S.A., earlier this month. Ever heard of conflict of interest? CoI is a serious crime when it comes to the judiciary. Doctor cure not thyself!

Mr Alpha Conneh,
You proclaim to be neutral but your statements proved otherwise. besides you have proven why the case should go further at the Senate where the real trial will take place.

You have already claimed that the charges are fabricated. how do we know that? The Supreme court needs to step aside and allow the case to go forward to the House of senate where all of the charges will be made available and debated as for their merits and demerits. Let’s allow our legal systems to operate as a true check and balance.

Finally your fear of the house is unfounded. There are already cases against Janeh that have been reported in the news outlets, and I believe there are others we have not heard of.

Signs of lost for power is beginning to be seen in all three branches of this Government. This country Chief Justice has no right to mandate or request the Minister of Justice to prepare a defense on a jurisdiction purely under a Judiciary function. The Executive instructs comparing defense soldier lawyers during war and/or military actions. The Supreme Court has its own lawyers and regardless what code of laws are quoted to back up constitutional provisions in an impeachment case involving a member of the Justices in Chambers, should be civil lawyers, if not, should have lawyers paid by state Judiciary branch lock. The Ministry of Justice is under the function of the Executive Branch and in defense of only executive issues or cases in the interest of the Liberian Government. On the opposite or other hand and on equal powers par the other two Branches the Liberian Government, no administration, another branch has the authority to mandate the Supreme Court. Only the Liberian people, for, of, as a people can Mandate. If this Legislature must present its bills, it must stay within the limits of its Legislative requirements presented by the Liberian nation. Gone to silent majority. Do not reply my box. God does not like lost.

Lust bring in tyranny which has no destiny. When you lust, you have lost faith. Unintentional or intentional failure is not the same as lost. Therefore if you take away or possess the responsibility and authority of another branch, lust becomes lost. Government should avoid concupiscence. The Liberian people are watching. Answer the People.

For All to read. I couldn’t help but provide a piece from an
op-ed in the Washington Post from one of the most, if not the most renowned and well known Constitutional Law professors from Harvard on the roles of Congress and the Courts in Impeachment. It’s written for the general public to understand.

“The framers built the Constitution on the premise that men aren’t angels, and they did not trust a president’s nominees to the Supreme Court to be impartial in determining whether he should stay in office. At the Constitutional Convention, Virginia’s George Mason thought judges “surely” ought not preside over the impeachment trials of presidents to whom they owed their jobs; Connecticut’s Roger Sherman agreed. So the framers came up with a solution: They assigned the impeachment power to the House and the power to try impeachments to the Senate.”

He goes on and elaborates on the role of the Court, as ceremonial and even quotes what the late Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, said his role was during Clinton’s impeachment trial. As I stated in a prior comment, the Senate serves as both the judge and jury in the actual trial. Below is how Lawrence Tribes puts it:

“To the Supreme Court, the framers reserved an almost exclusively ceremonial role in impeachment, assigning the chief justice to preside over the president’s trial in the Senate. Of his limited role in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist later said, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”

Well said Professor Tribe. I will just add that why he’s focused on the President in the op-ed, because of the potential impeachment of the current president, the same laws apply to Vice President, and Justices of the Supreme Court, as the current proceedings is in Liberia. This is a great lesson for all.

Professor Lawrence Tribe
is Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School.

I think many of the commenters have focused on their desire to see a sense of fairness from an emotional view, either towards Justice Janeh from losing his job, or that he be punished for acts of his that some commenters believe were unfair and cruel advantage he took over others. But reliance on any of these sentiments will lead one to bring into their understanding of Article 43 and due process protection under the law in both the intent of the framers and the application of those rights.

Due process addresses a person’s fundamental basic rights of “life, liberty, security and property”. However, a public office is not a person’s “life” or “liberty”. And a public office is certainly not the “property” of a public official. Rather it is an office of public trust.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the idea of due process is deeply ingrained in the traditional principles of democracy. Daniel Webster refers to it as a law “which hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. As such, the Senate, granted with the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachments is mandated under the constitution with this idea of due process, which gives the impeached officials the opportunity to be notified and be heard before judgments against them by the Senate. To temper the alarm of many commenters concern about the House’ sole role in drafting the bill of impeachment, the House does not render judgment. What the House does is files and persecutes impeachment charges. Look at it this way. Either Houses of the Legislative Branch oftentimes call public officials to appear before them to explain certain actions taken by those public officials. That is to help them in whether to subsequently submit a bill in light of their understanding of a certain fact or they can simply proceed and submit a bill in support of the public official actions without the need to request a hearing. In either case, the idea of due process in the Legislature simply means that there is a process that is due in carrying out those actions by either House of the Legislature.

With that understanding, lets look at two plausible actions that House could follow and the Constitution under Article 43 vested them with sole jurisdiction as to the process they choose to follow, including due process. Due process does not mean that the Judiciary is authorize to validate its application over the sole functions of the other Branches.

The first is, if the House by a one third votes of the members (in the U.S or whatever votes the Liberian House has on these matters for Liberia to pass such bills into articles of impeachment) that the bill submitted does not show “proven misconduct….”, the House may decide to not proceed with the hearing or decide to hold a hearing to ascertain whether the accusations are “proven misconduct…”as alleged by the accusing legislators. Under the scenario where the House decides to ascertain additional information in the allegations before it, it can summon the accused official to a hearing to answer questions raised by the House members. There is a process that is due here. There will be notification to the accused to appear. This is simply a hearing which the Legislature can require of any public official on alleged actions by that public official. The procedure is whatever the Legislature decide it would be. There is no potential for due process of law violation, as it is a hearing to determine if the House would be convinced to choose in its sole discretion to proceed with an action or not.

In the second scenario, if the Bill submitted to the House is accepted as proven allegations by the vote of procedural majority (one third in the U.S House), there is no longer a need for notice and hearing required, since the required majority has already would have been convinced of the accused official’s culpability.

In summary, to impeach is simply clarifying and bringing suit, not a conviction or imposition of sanction. And the standard in the House is whatever the they choose it to be.

So, what we have in Liberia, is the Court intervene in a Legislative proceedings it has no right to be include itself in, in violation of Article 44 that could trigger a possible contempt of the Legislature charge.

Hello Larry. Thanks for your insight but I have some questions for you. Here is the first: Is the action by the House of Representatives considered to be a legal proceeding (Note that the Constitution does not separate the two Houses in Article 43)?

2. Take note of the following:
Impeachment also refers to the trial of a public official for charges of illegal acts committed in the performance of public duty. It is the constitutional process, not the conviction or removal from office, whereby the House of Representatives may “impeach” (accuse of misconduct) high officers of the federal government for trial in the Senate.

Question: Is the action by the House considered to be a Constitutional Process?

3. If your answers to 1 and/or 2 are “Yes” take note of the following:
Article 66
The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall
exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts
of record, courts not of record, administrative agencies, autonomous agencies or any other authority, both as to law and fact except cases involving ambassadors, ministers or cases in which a county is a party. In all such cases, the Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction. The Legislature shall make no law nor create any exceptions as would deprive the Supreme
Court of any of the powers granted herein.

Question: If a citizen of the Republic petitions the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of constitutional issues, to review impeachment proceedings does the Liberian Constitution give the Court the power to review these proceedings?

Article 43 states; The Legislature shall prescribe the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be in conformity with the requirements of due process of law.

The Rottenstein Law Group’s legal Library states the following:
The core procedural due process rights are the rights to notice and a hearing. In other words, in any legal or administrative proceeding, any person who might be negatively affected by the outcome of the proceeding has the right to be told that the proceeding is going to take place, the right to appear before a neutral judge or arbiter, and the right to explain his or her side of the case before a decision is made.

Question: Under our Constitution is the individual who is being considered for impeachment entitled to procedural due process by the House of Representatives before a decision (vote) is made?

For your #3 point, you have not connected the dots of Article 66, which it’s clear you misunderstand. Furthermore, you incorrectly rely on your statement and question in point #2 to ask an unrelated question in #3. You asked if an action by the House is considered a constitutional process, but your reference of Article 66 and question relying on my question to #2 is about Constitutional issues. There’s a difference between process and issues.

I’ve reposted a portion of Article 66 from your #3 point below:
“Article 66
The Supreme Court shall be the final arbiter of constitutional issues and shall exercise final appellate jurisdiction in all cases whether emanating from courts…”
To understand this, look at the key words here, “Constitutional issues”, “exercise final appellate”, “jurisdiction” “cases”. Please avail yourself of prior comments I made on this trail and related stories from this paper that addresses many of the questions being raised. One one grasp the meaning of those words I have in quotations, then it becomes clearer why the House action in this impeachment proceedings is outside the scope of Judicial Review. Firstly, drafting and submitting a Bill is not a case, and it’s not a lawsuit neither will the House try or convict.
To answer your question in #3 then, I’ll give this scenario, would a traffic court judge hear a case from a petitioner who was robbed? No, because traffic Court don’t hear robbery cases. A court has to first determine the validity of a petition, and then its jurisdiction to hear the petition. The Constitution has already provided direction on who prepares a Bill of impeachment. And it give a vested sole authority to the House. And because that’s the stage of the current impeachment proceedings, there is no provision in the Constitution for the court to intervene. It has no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court as final arbiter does not mean it has the final word on the Constitution. It does have the final word on Judicial matters. The House actions are Legislative matters with clear directives in the Constitution of its sole authority.

For question#4, read other comments I wrote that addresses that question here and in related stories. I believe other commenters have addressed that also.

I’m sure there are many who are seeking answers to the questions you raised. May this help with a healthy dialogue.

OPI. In responding to your point #2, I am not sure I understand what you wrote and the question derived from it. So my response is based on how I read into your text. Are you asking if acts of public officials pursuant to the Constitution is considered a process? If that’s your question, I don’t see the relevance to the House exercise of its Constitutional authority. Constitutional Process is not a coined legal term. All activities are done by following a process. So, since the House is following a process the Constitution gives it sole vested authority, yes the process is Constitutional. Note, the word “vested” determines the degree to which you have control over something, and here it says “sole” which means you have 100% interest or authority over something. “The power to prepare a bill is ‘vested solely’ in the House of Representatives…”

In response to your replies: “OK OHHHH!” (sarcasm) The Constitution is clear as day but apparently some of you only want to apply specific portions to support your arguments while completely ignoring other portions that are just as or even more relevant. I see whats going on here so no need to argue an further. Good day Gentlemen!

Nope, you’re mistaken. Article 43 of the Constitution DOES separate the two Houses! The FIRST sentence states that “The power to prepare a bill of impeachment is vested SOLELY in the House of Representatives and the power to try all impeachments is vested solely in the Senate.” Doesn’t that sound like SEPARATION to you??

OPI. The role of the House and the Senate are delineated in Article 43. Both chambers make up the Legislature. While I understand this is a leading question, I’ll tag along and answer to help provide an understanding in how to read the Constitution.

Follow up to question 4 (Lets call this 5):
Our House of Representatives is well known its “Notices to Appear”, especially when it is to give reason as why a person should not be held in contempt.

Question 5.1: Are “Notices to Appear” before the House considered to be a right provided under procedural due process?
Question 5.2: Was any such notice i.e. “Notice to Appear” provided to the Associate Justice?

Question 5.1 & 5.2. I addressed the issue of notification and appearance already in a prior comment, with much detail on when it’s necessary:

The House can use any one of two scenarios to entertain and vote on the Bill of impeachment.
1) If the submitted Bill required to be voted by one third of the House to proceed with the impeachment proceedings does not get the one third vote because the required House members are not convinced of the evidence before them, they can hold a hearing and invite the accused public official to answer questions that will enable them in making that decision. This is not a trial of a Judicial due process. Thus is a process that is part of the House functions. So a “Notice” is sent and an “Appearance” before the House committee. So the “process” that is “due” is whatever the House chooses it to be in carrying out their task. It’s not a right but a process the House has to ascertain more information on matters before it to help the House in deciding how to vote There is no issue of “life” “liberty” “security” and “property” under due process here. Just like neither the Legislature or Executive can tell the Supreme Court to answer to how they determine who become Justice in-Chambers. Understand where the House is in the process. It is simply preparing a prosecutorial document that will be used in the actual trial by the Senate, where the accused will get a chance to defend his due process rights. So the Stay Order is premature, as it is attempting to interfere in the working of another Branch of Government where the Constitution has not given it authority to intervene in violation of Article 44 (Contempt of the Legislature). Now I read there are sectarian groups who are asking the President to intervene in a extortionate manner, by emphasising the geographic affiliation of the accused and the resources of that region as reasons to cease the proceedings. If the President responds, I suggest his should be a public statement admonishing all to adhere to and allow the Constitutional process to take its full course. And then he can further concluded that he believes in the Constitution and that the process will achieve its Constitutional goal and everyone should respect it.
There’s no Constitutional provision for what they are asking of the President.

2) The second scenario is that one third or more of the House believe the accusations and voted to proceed. In this case, there’s no need for a notice and appearance, as they have and believe in all the information before them.

Both of the scenarios above fall within the sole authority of the House.

Comment:
I don’t know if Janneh is guilty or not and honestly I don’t care! I gave up on our Justice system a long time ago.

What I do know is the House of Representatives is mishandling this situation and due to this:
1. If guilty Janneh may not even face any kind of justice (no pun intended)
2. We are faced with a Constitutional crisis
3. We may be faced with a civil crisis because guilty or innocent Janneh’s Constitutional rights are being violated
………..all simply because the members of the House want to fast track his impeachment.

Why should people who claim to be intelligent, argue without taking into consideration some of the situation that brought war into the county. The speaker including Representative Gray tone, expression of words to the supreme court officials were so divisive and stupid full of too much power drunk. let take step back for a second, ritualistic killing cases pending in the south east counties where these are representative are not applying the law. The speaker and his people are applying hate under the disguise of applying rule of law. The pending ritualistic cases over Liberia including one in Monrovia where Gray is representing, he Gray including the Speaker are not able to bring release to the family in the rule of law.
These people are very disgusting and should ashamed of themselves.
They are insulting the Chief Justice under the disguise of rule of law.

Why should people who claim to be intelligent, argue without taking into consideration what brought the war in our county. The speaker including Representative Gray tone and expression of words to the supreme court officials were so divisive, full of stupidity and I think they are power drunk. let take step back for a second, ritualistic killing cases pending trial in the south east counties where these people are representative, we have seen no effort by them to applying the law. The speaker and his people are applying and preaching hate under the disguise of applying rule of law. The pending ritualistic cases all over Liberia including many in Monrovia where Gray is representing, he Gray including the Speaker are applying zero effort to bring release to the family who are crying for their love one kill in cold blood.
These people are very disgusting and should ashamed of themselves.
Sorry, this better version, too much mistake in the above version
They are insulting the Chief Justice under the disguise of rule of law.

Johnny. I’m not sure if your comment is meant to bring an awareness to a separate but equally important event taking place in the country, that ought to be addressed or if you are suggesting an opinion on the impeachment proceedings. Sorry, to be frank, I can’t tell from your comment.

But the issue you raised about ritualistic killings, which are criminal acts against current laws, are persecuted in the courts and not the Legislature. Laws already exists that identify criminal acts and prescribe the remedy to the injured parties and their beneficiaries.

Laws protecting people’s rights are executed by the Executive Branch. Instead of being alarmed at the Legislature, one should hold the Ministry of Justice and the respective domestic security apparatuses (e.g., local police, etc. ) responsible for protecting the citizenry.

You can’t achieve what you express outside the framework of the Constitution. And that was the cause of the conflict that brought war. For if conflicting sides had subjected themselves to the law, regardless of what sentiments they had on an issue (whether tribal affiliation, geographic and etc.) no one would’ve gone into arms conflict.

So, now the nation is being tested on whether all the instructions of governance can adhere to the Law without regard to whether you share tribal or geographic identity with litigants in a case or parties in constitutional matters.

It’s important to understand the steps the House has taken do not violate any law.

The second to the last paragraph in my above comment should read has “instructions” and should be “institutions” and should read:

“So, now the nation is being tested on whether all the institutions of governance can adhere to the Law without regard to whether you share tribal or geographic identity with litigants in a case or parties in constitutional matters.”

Larry Emmerson it is clear that the issue surrounding this impeachment is motivated by division and hate and does not bring any peace initiative to our country. We should be talking about peace reconciliation among ourselves instead of impeachment process. I do know separation of power between these three branches of government. Creator of the issue of impeachment if they were needing to help the poor old lady who her land was taking from by J’neh they should have handled it differently. Some of us personally know this old lady and even this impeachment does not help, she only need her land back. Some of us feel strongly she will get her land through other mean. My ideal here is that we should be fostering peace in Liberia. Many including me feel strongly that they people are out to take Nimba person position and I feel truly so. Why people are abusing The Chief Justice of the Supreme court?

Johnny. I have no evidence that the actions of the accusing lawmakers is from personal hatred or sectarian hatred. How do you prove an action is based on a motivation of hatred?

Laws are written to enforce an implied social contract that help secure and maintain relationship amongst a diverse group of people. If people deviate from it, then each person’s personal biases and prejudices will govern how one think and decides. That’s why if the laws are followed, there is always a remedy that ensures a person a fair hearing.

The House members may not even have an interest in helping the elderly lady and their Bill is not intended to address that. Their Bill is filed to address alleged actions of a public official, that if proven, degrades the trust in the public office held by the accused. There are numerous other alleged acts in the Bill if impeachment.

The best thing to do, and I’m still shocked that the accused Justice lawyers are not doing, is to argue in the public square a convincing reasons to impress on the House to not vote for impeachment rather than challenge their Constitutionally authorized functions, or accuse the House members of tribal or geographic prejudices. It’s a losing battle and only complicate matters. Whether their decision is based on politics or something else, the evidence they have does not support any of your claims against them as reasons for their actions.

No one knows who the President would nominate to replace the Associate Justice
if he was first impeached and then removed from office. How then can one say, the accusers are try to take out a Nimba person position. Also, as I commented earlier, public office is a public trust and not owned by anyone. There’s no right to the position by anyone.

This is not about evidence, it is the tension that it is creating between the entire Liberian public. Larry Emerson. The creator of this so call impeachment bill are derailing if not destroying the peace in Liberia. we are gradually turning into enemy ship. Whether the president appoint new person or not it brings about enemy. This enemy ship build up and it explores. This is very bad governance and only people that do not have any educational back ground can run government like this. The so call law makers of this impeachment do not have much of good educational resume. Some of them are mere university of Liberia graduate and even graduate from the university of Liberia in the 1980s and 1970s and no other advance education. What the learn by then is to turn people against each other, no prove but we are seeing the behavior and prove now. Just look at any of these people resume, you will not fine a master degree on any of them resume from any reputable university in the west. People with low level education behave like this. The only position they can hide behind is law maker. Ritualistic killing for demonic power is pushing Liberia into deep hole. why is it no of them cannot prevail on the justice ministry to bring the perpetrator to justice as mean of relieve for those victim family even though it is their job. The got the power and influence. I do understand the justice ministry job is to bring these criminal to justice, the so call law maker have an obligation to voice these thing out in the interest of the victim. low level educated people leadership is a problem for Liberia. The law maker need to preach peace and not create divisiveness as a way of proving that they are working in the interest of the people.
I do not know who the president will appoint but it is clear that these people have close relation with the president and could influence the president decision for supreme court associate justice appointment.

This sis not a popular bill according to opinion poll coming from Liberia. majority of Liberian opinion says the government should be convening peace and reconciliation now to foster peace among Liberian than passing impeachment bill. The people are hungry, the need governance that will have immediate impact on their sufferings and not impeachment bill. Bunch of high school and 1970s and 1980s graduates of the University of Liberia preaching hate with no advance education. Some the examples of their hate and enemy ship, according to recent research conducted concerning people in America and the EU, the money we sent home made Liberian at home to survive. With that said the very law maker will not pass Dual nationality bill. They sees us as an enemy to take their job. See the stupidity some these so call law makers are. The uneducated speaker with no resume that we can see and his bunch uneducated impeachment bill creators are intended to tension in the country.

Johnny. You raise valid concerns that should be addressed, separate from the impeachment proceedings. The rise in any form of crimes should be of concern to any society. From what I’ve read on various crimes being committed in the country, it has nothing to do with lack of legislative actions. It’s more of enforcing the law and persecuting the criminals.

No one would want suspects arrested for ritualistic killings to be set free on the presumption that to persecute them under the law would derail peace in their community.

I don’t see how the impeachment Bill is derailing peace in the country. Laws are written to be followed. It’s a legal document that says someone holding an office of public trust breached the conducts required of a person who should hold that office of Public Trust. The House will determine, in there Constitutional role to act on the Bill. To try to derail a constitutionally followed process would be derailing the peace of the country.

The issues you raise on crimes and dual citizenship are unrelated to the reasons for the Bill of impeachment. If the security forces are not providing the necessary protection for people, the Ministry of Justice is not persecuting criminals and the Courts are not hearing cases involving criminal acts, you’ll tend to have an escalation in the crime rate.

The Legislature can always enact into law new measures to address gaps that are responsible for certain criminal acts. The impeachment Bill does not stop the House from performing its other tasks.

Liberia; the land of the LAWYERS. If only we had as many with “SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE”, how wonderful it would be. Let’s make this one simple. At the moment, this is a matter for Lower House. Stpp wasting TIME and MONEY. Nothing Further!

Justice Youh is infact violating the very Laws she was appointed to uphold-“The Constitution”. It’s “The Supreme Law Of Liberia. As it is, this a matter for The Lower House; “The House Of Representatives”; as per Liberia’s Constitution. Let there be DUE process.

Liberianobserver.com is the online version of its print edition, the Daily Observer newspaper, a product of the Liberian Observer Corporation. The Daily Observer publishes a wide range of content including politics, business, sports and entertainment on and about Liberia. Follow us on social media for all the latest news and analysis.